Alliance Budget Updates & Judge White speaks with legislators

By now you have heard that last Thursday the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees voted to provide an additional $100 million to the trial courts this year, and raise the reserved funds limit from 1% to 12%. The Department of Finance made it clear that the Governor opposes this increase and change. The Legislature stated they want the funds to go to reopening closed courthouses and suspending plans to close additional ones, to restoring self-help services and to increasing public operating hours.

Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer, the chair of the subcommittee, told judicial branch leaders who attended the Capitol hearing that the Judiciary was on “probation.” Administrative Director Steven Jahr promised the Assembly panel that the money would be spent transparently and efficiently. “You have my word on it,” he said.

However, before the “ink was even dry” on the proposal, and in spite of Director Jahr’s promise, persons at the highest level of the Judicial Council secretly lobbied legislators to reduce the additional revenue to the trial courts in favor of further funding for the appellate courts and possibly the Judicial Council itself. As a result, the Senate at first agreed to reduce the allocation to $94 million, to allow $6 million directed to the appellate courts. We now understand that this reduction will be reversed. The full $100 million will be specifically directed to the trial courts. The appellate courts need additional funding, but the emphasis right now must be the restoration of trial court funding and public access. We must have open courtrooms.

Of course, we all know that $100 million of additional funding will not stop the curtailed court operations that have been planned. Lost in this public debate is the fact that there are funds available within the existing branch funding that need to be redirected to the trial courts. Alliance President Judge Steve White forcefully made this point appearing before the legislative committees. He stated, “If there is $150 million within the budget for the trial courts to borrow, then there is $150 million at least to redistribute.” Judge White’s statement met with rousing applause from the audience. You may view Judge White’s appearance at this link.

We attach two documents that we ask you to evaluate. One is our own summary of some budgeted funds that we think need reevaluation for possible redirection to trial court operations. We also attach a report dated February 2013 that reviews AOC staffing. We ask you to consider, for example, whether it is truly necessary for the AOC to employ 73 people in the Judicial Education department. Why are there 156 people still employed in the AOC IT division in light of the total collapse of the CCMS project? Given the financial crisis facing our courts, we believe the Legislature must demand a reevaluation of our branch priorities.

The Alliance directors will be in Sacramento next week. We plan to forcefully argue that the budget include additional money for the trial courts from existing resources, in addition to any new General Fund revenue that is proposed. In this way, even if new money does not materialize, particularly in the face of the Governor’s opposition, the trial courts will still receive some relief this year.

We also provide a report of the budget hearings by Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service.

Legislature Votes to Restore $100 Million to Calif. Courts
By MARIA DINZEO

SACRAMENTO (CN) – Chastened by the fury of court employees negatively impacted by layoffs, court closures, and years of repeated cuts to funding for trial courts, the California Legislature voted to restore $100 million to the judicial branch’s budget.

The money will be an ongoing addition to the budget, but it comes with a few caveats:

It must be used specifically for keeping the trial courts running, and officials from the Administrative Office of the Courts must account for the money received both before and after it is spent.

Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Assembly budget sub-committee, said the Administrative Office will be required to submit a report each August – before it receives the money — outlining its spending plans, and then later they, “will come back to us to show they did what they said they were going to do.”

He added, “Whatever they’ve cut, these monies are specifically to go to augmenting or hopefully reversing all of that.”

The unanimous vote was preceded by a lively period of public comment punctuated by bursts of cheers and applause.

Cheryl Clark, an Alameda court worker who drew some of loudest cheers, said, “Where has all this money gone? Why do we have to close at 2:30 [p.m.]? I’m with everyone else — accountability for the AOC. But if they’re not going to be accountable, give the money to the trial courts and let us be responsible for us. We can bypass all of that.

“The money is well needed,” Clark continued. ” And … if they’re not going to account for the money, it needs to be taken away from them and let the courts take care of it- each court equally.”

The court workers, many of whom wore yellow t-shirts emblazoned with the words “Public Safety First, Keep LA Courts Open,” called on lawmakers to hold the central court bureaucracy accountable for the spending of the new funds.

Paris Fox, an employee at the Alameda County Superior Court, said it disheartening for him, “as a court employee” and “servant of the people of the state of California” to tell people the court closes at 2:30 p.m., while at the same time acknowledging a new, $2.3 billion courthouse is being built nearby – a reference to a controversial courthouse construction project in Long Beach.

“People don’t understand that,” said Fox, whose comments were greeted by loud applause from other speakers. “So I hope and pray that as the money goes from this body, the legislature, which is trusted by the people of the state, to this body in front of me, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the one word that is in my head here is accountability. And transparency.”

The court workers’ comments were not lost on the lawmakers, who for years have been listening to allegations of misspending and waste, while local trial courts, starved for funds, have been shuttering courthouses and laying off staff.

The judiciary is still reeling from the failed implementation of a new Court Case Management System, a project that was terminated last year after it became mired in cost overruns and other issues, and was widely criticized by trial judges and court employees.

Assembly member Diane Harkey (R-Orange County) said the AOC’s handling of the judicial branch’s money has been “almost a constant controversy” in her five years in the Legislature.

“I’m not here to harass anybody but what I’d like to see, seriously, is a real communication such that we get the money to the trial courts. I do think things are a little bit better than they were under the previous chief justice, that being said there’s just so much more to go.

I would hope there would be some way that we could get more funding to the courts and less to the administration,” Harkey said, drawing applause from the court workers in the audience.

She asked new AOC Director Judge Steven Jahr for a response. “I know you’re not amongst friends here,” she said.

“I must respectfully disagree,” Jahr answered. “I think the comments that have been made throughout the audience today have been more illustrative of the problems we face in the trenches than anything I could have said.”

He added, “It’s easy to find boogeymen. When you take away the amount of money that had to be taken away on account of the extraordinary fiscal crisis we had you’re going to expect breakdown. It’s my commitment to you to see that that is done properly, efficiently and transparently.”

Jones-Sawyer added his own frustrations about the bureaucracy. “I came from the City of Los Angeles. I was director of real estate. I used to have to deal with a group called the AOC in dealing with commercial property. It was probably one of the worst experiences I ever had with another governmental entity in my life.”

He went on to recall his experience trying to rent space in the Long Beach courthouse building, characterizing it as, “painful, to say the least.”

“What I can tell you now, as someone who has been highly critical of the AOC, is that Judge Jahr has been very cooperative, open and I think he is the first link at us turning this ship around for the courts, especially when it comes to accountability,” he said.

“Everyone on both sides of the aisle firmly believes that the court needs more money,” Jones-Sawyer added. “We’d like for this $100 million to go toward beginning to restore self-help services, extend business hours, begin the process of reducing delays and adjudicating cases and most important, reopen closed facilities or suspend anticipated closures.”

The audience again erupted into cheers.

With that, the committee chairman turned to Jahr, saying, “You’re kind of on probation now yourself, you and the court system. This is your opportunity to show the legislature and the governor that you can spend those dollars wisely. Once there is some greater transparency and accountability not only will this body look to giving you more money in the future, we will find more because there’s a comfort level to make sure the money gets down to the trial courts.”

In addition to the increased funding, the committee voted on Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to increase the amount of money courts can carry in reserve. His original plan was to sweep more of the courts’ fund balances, leaving them with only one percent reserves.

The proposal approved by the committee would increase the amount of funds a trial court can carryover from one fiscal year to the next to 12 percent.

In the Senate, meanwhile, a budget sub-committee chaired by Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) also voted for the $100 million restoration and the 12 percent carryover.

“This has been a very big concern of the entire legislature in the last year, how we adequately fund the third branch of government, recognizing that justice delayed erodes competence in democracy,” Hancock said.

The measures passed despite warnings from the Department of Finance that revenue projections were still tenuous.

But Hancock also had some sharp words for the AOC on the new Long Beach courthouse, scheduled to open this year. The Senate sub-committee approved $53.6 million for the first “service payment,” to be taken out the judiciary’s construction budget. These payments are estimated to cost $2.3 billion over the life of the 35-year contract.

As many have argued that private financiers have made money off the state on a one-sided contract, the committee’s approval came with more restrictions on future public-private partnerships.

“That was a fiasco. That was done at the end of the last administration but its going to cost the people of California a lot of money,” Hancock said. “We don’t want to see this happen again, so we need rules. I’m sorry, we need to be more careful with our money and we need to do it right.”

The Assembly committee also voted 3-2 to approve the first payment, but not before Judge Steve White of Sacramento Superior Court told committee members that they should not approve any payments without first looking at the state’s liability.

“Were this matter to be audited or were there to be an analysis of the purported business plan of this courthouse you would find the state got pantsed and the private players got rich,” Judge White said. “I strongly suggest that this body look at whether the state has any liability whatsoever.”

He added, “It would be a mistake and a misuse of state monies to pay for this without getting the parties back to the table. Because of this project some four courthouse construction projects are on ice and some 11 others are not even in line anymore.”

Just before the Governor’s updated budget proposal last week, I sent you a message concerning the 2013-2014 Judiciary budget. As we anticipated, the Governor’s proposal does not include any restoration of the budget cuts our branch has suffered. As we also predicted, the Speaker of the Assembly has proposed unspecified additional trial court funding, coupled with strict demands for transparency and accountability.

With these developments, the Alliance is prepared to advance a budget proposal for the trial courts. We will ask for an on-going restoration of $475 million to the trial courts. To this end, we propose $275 million of new General Fund support, and $200 million of redirected funds from within the existing Judiciary budget. It is very clear that a major impediment to restored funding is the fact that the Judicial Council and the AOC wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on the failed CCMS project, mismanaged construction projects, and overfed the AOC into its present state of bloat.Because of these failures, funds otherwise available for trial court operations have been lost. After the Governor’s budget proposal was released, the Chief Justice advised that the Department of Finance was preparing trailer bill language authorizing trial courts to “borrow” up to $150 million from other judicial branch funds.

The trial courts should not be required to borrow money that should have been theirs in the first place. If there is $150 million available to borrow, then there is at least that amount available within the existing budget to be redirected.We believe that there is room for significant contribution to restored trial court funding within the existing Judiciary budget. By way of only one example, the State Court Facilities Construction Fund shows a Reserve for Contingencies at the end of this fiscal year of $128 million. When the trial courts are relegated to a 1% reserve balance limitation, we see no need to keep these other funds reserved given the current crisis.

In the run-up to the budget crisis the AOC and Judicial Council steadily and increasingly moved resources from the trial courts to fund AOC and Judicial Council priorities. And when the Judiciary’s budget was slashed because California’s economy was upended by the worst recession in four generations, the disproportionate impact of those cuts fell upon the trial courts. This is why courts have been closing and judicial functions stymied throughout California. Without action by our co-equal branches of government, this decline will inevitably continue.

When the Judicial Branch and its Constitutional responsibilities are put at risk it is the responsibility of judges to stand up and step forward to meet these threats. It is not acceptable to sit by and defer to the AOC and the Judicial Council – because they are not the Judicial Branch and because they are part of what has brought us to this pass. The Alliance joins with those who seek a constructive solution to the funding and governance crises afflicting our branch of government.

The Chief Justice and Jahr should be summoned to a legislative investigative panel to explain and justify why they haven’t fully implemented, AT A MINIMUM, the findings and recommendations set forth in the SEC report with respect to the bloated, ineffective, wasteful, and obstructionist AOC.

In the meantime, all extra funding provided by the legislature to the judiciary should be specifically designated for allocation to the trial courts. The trial courts should be further directed to spend such additional funding on reversing cutbacks in operations that have adversely affected service to litigants, the bar, and the public before spending it on anything else.

Does this mean that the AOC/Jahr Head have violated their “probation” in colusion with the Senate? Thank you ACJ for bringing this BS to the forefront. It will be interesting to see what the consequences will be for this violation. Can you say NOTHING? But keep hounding them. It will be interesting to see how this $100 mill will be allocated to the trial courts….maybe they will have to borrow it from the AOC? Or the AOC itself will decide how each court will be allowed to spend its share?
Borrowing money from the AOC? Indeed. the AOC will not rest until it controls every cent that trickles down to the trial courts from its bloated, stinking carcass. I won’t believe this funding will get to the trial courts or they will be allowed to use it in a manner that is best for their individual trial court, until I see it.

ACJ, the AOC employs 73 people in CJER to support the ministry of truth, create fabrications to justify AOC and JC policies on paper and in film, handle the hordes of media inquires, indoctrinate new judges to the “AOC way” aka the dark side, and because someone has to make the vats of kool-aide. Oh and I forgot, to facilitate your next useless, boring AOC why the hell am I here talking head meeeting. It takes a lot of folks and specialized expertise to write on those big pads of paper and expertly wield those multi colored markers. Ask Leah Wilson, new CEO of Alameda courts, no doubt such expertise was crucial in considering her for the position, and more than made up for her total lack of court experience.

73 people in CJER. Incredible. The California DA’s statewide organization employs 6 in their training unit. Woodhull is right again. J Jahr’s claims of ” transparency” and change ring hollow. Nothing has changed. In addition to the CJER unit why do we need 100 lawyers in OGC and close to 200 tech people post CCMS ? Why are all public information requests regarding the JC/AOC deemed ” dissenting” sent to Justice Harry Hull and buried there? Has anyone recently asked whether the JC/AOC is still paying into Clark Kelso’s retirement for his work as Receiver for the Department of Corrections? And of those 100 or so OGC lawyers , how many of them continue to telecommute on a regular basis? How much is all this costing? More than just the waste of public funds. It is costing branch credibility with the public, legislature and Governor and in turn it is the citizens we serve that pay the price. For Justice Hull to claim as he did that J Jahr was the best candidate in the country to lead the AOC is beyond belief. Hull, Jahr and HRH 2 should do every one a favor and resign. When they don’t the legislature needs to act to defund the JC/AOC .

Why is it that arrogant government agencies treat the dissenters unfairly and differently ? IRS targeting conservative political groups is no different than the Judicial Council deciding to treat dissenting questions different than any others by forwarding them to Justice Hull. Hull in turn believes that he is exempt from any timelines created for responding to these requests. What we have in each instance is the tyranny of unelected government. The legislature would be well advised to investigate Hull and ask why he is even involved in the process of an administrative agencies obligation to respond to legitimate requests for public information.

It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the pace of AOC spending was and is unsustainable. Even while the rest of the state economically contracted, the pace of AOC spending didn’t. if they weren’t going to blow two billion on one project, they were going to find a way to blow two billion on another project.

At no time did the JC or AOC have any funding legislation or even a firm commitment in writing that the other two branches would pick up the bill for Long Beach. Some wish to characterize Long Beach as King George’s last hurrah.

At any time during the process, the current administration could have (and should have) given this project another look and either firmed up funding in advance of its construction or terminated the project.

There is no doubt that long beach needs a new courthouse. However committing 2.3 billion when you are begging the legislature and the taxpayers for more money for your operations AND getting them to commit to pick up the entire 2.3 billion dollar tab was reckless management and is yet another demonstration of how they are poor stewards of the public and trial court trust.

The word is getting around that there is transparency and accountability at the AOC.

Huh?

Some excerpts from the One Legal blog —

———————————————————————————————————-

“Last Thursday the 24th, I attended the quarterly luncheon meeting of the SFADCCS along with some of my fellow members. These meetings are always a lot of fun as they are held in the Palace Hotel in downtown San Francisco. You can’t beat the setting…an old time SF hotel in the heart of the financial district …

“The scheduled speaker this day, Judge (Ret.) Steven Jahr, the new Administrative Director of the Courts, was unable to attend. Something about budget negotiations… So, in his stead, Jody Patel, the Administrative Office of Court’s Chief of Staff, was the guest of honor.

“Recent meetings at the Capitol, and with labor, have been very positive, she said. The word is getting around that there is transparency and accountability at the AOC and she’s hopeful therefore, that some restorative funding will be coming to the courts soon, perhaps by the end of July! And that means the courts will be able to re-hire some of the 2200 trial court employee that have been lost over the last several years.”

As much as they try to get the word out about transparency and accountability, the message that is heard is a polar opposite. Jody, when are you going to take decisive action against everyone involved in the Jacobs and AGS unlicensed contractor matters?

Oh?

You’re not going to do anything except pass out raises?

Kindly Jody, ‘splain to the rest of us how ignoring events makes you more accountable.

What did you say?

An explanation represents TRANSPARENCY and you can’t provide that explanation?

No, I didn’t think so. So about the people who signed off on the long beach project. How many of those people still collect an AOC paycheck? All of them? Yep I thought so.

Accountability underscored. (more like put to death and buried but hey, it’s all aoc semantics.)

How many of the people who managed the CCMS project still collect an AOC paycheck? Most of them except Mark Moore who is now Minnesota courts IT director and Sheila Calabro who retired and Stephen Nash who is running San Bernardino? (probably into the ground but that’s the subject of another comment….)

And you’re accountable? Just how are you accountable?

Explain to me HOW you are accountable when you do nothing but give these people raises instead of canning their asses.

Word is getting around about your lack of transparency and accountability Jody “Michelle Bachmann” Patel.aand it is spreading faster than your song and dance about BEING transparent and accountable.

Some unconfirmed intel indicates Bill Kasley of the AOC, the right hand weasel of Mary Roberts will be retiring at the end of June. Mary “The Lizard” Roberts will be retiring by the end of the year. We want you all to note that these fine public servants will soon be collecting pensions when they should both be doing hard time. With any luck, some three letter agencies will take an interest in these characters after they retire.

The word is getting around that there is more transparency and accountability at the AOC? These are words attributed to Jody Patel? The fact that Patel and Mary Roberts are still working at the the AOC undermine that self serving claim. I guess no one at this lunch asked about the role of Justice Harry Hull when this so called transparency and accountability was raised. Having a Justice of the Court of Appeal selectively respond, ignore or bury only ” dissenting” requests for legitimate request for public information about a public agency is of course a further example of the new more transparent and accountable AOC . Lol. You can’t make any of this up . Really.

How is it that the AOC is the only state agency that has a Court of Appeal Justice , Justice Hull who responds to only certain ” dissenting” requests for public information? This really is like the IRS scandal in Washington DC where someone in the government decided to treat certain” dissenting ” groups differently. Dissent and the quest for open government and information about government expenditures are all hallmarks of our great democracy. There is no place for what the IRS or Hull is doing. Sorry to suggest this, but Hull’s actions and motivations warrant a full CJP investigation. His role in suppressing dissent within the branch certainly demean the role of the judiciary. Since the “insiders” at 455 Golden Gate will never allow that investigation to happen, the legislature needs to act, so the AOC like any public agency will be accountable to the citizens it works for. Sorry Ms Patel . You can say what you want but Hull’s actions totally undermine your claims that the JC/AOC is more transparent and accountable .

word is getting around that the AOC has transparency and accountability?!! Where?!! Me thinks the dragon lady has her head up her ass. Yeah, like trying to divert $6 mill of the $100 mill restored to the trial courts to the court of appeals. The only place those words are getting passed around is the executive office of the AOC along with the drinks of grey goose and much laughter.

More transparent and accountable says Jody Patel ? Then please explain why the AOC keeps hiring while the trial courts close their courthouses and layoff their employees. I was down in our clerks office this morning and witnessed the sad chaos that has resulted from the Judicial Council/AOC mismanagement of our budget.Multiple and long lines of our citizens waiting to just access their court. Meantime at the crystal palace , the AOC keeps hiring away. Why just today I noticed AOC employment ads for “Assistant Director of Governmental Affairs” a position that maxes out at 11,401 a month and ads for “Senior Software Engineer ” and “Senior Enterprise Architect” ( Huh what is that ? ) , which max out at 10,653 and 11,009 a month respectively. So despite the claims of hiring freezes, and reductions in their staff, the AOC actually continues to march on hiring new members of their bloated and unnecessary empire. Honestly do we need the above described positions in any way, shape or form? No we don’t. This is what the legislature needs to focus on. Nothing has changed at the AOC. They need to be gutted and defunded.

With HRH 2 , Patel , Sonderland, and now Jahr all away from San Francisco , the home of the crystal palace, what amount of taxpayer money has been expended on their lodging in San Francisco hotels ? I there any truth to the rumor that the AOC has a apartment or condo they pay for ? The taxpayers of California who have seen a huge reduction of court services are entitled to know how much is being wasted on hotels and other related ” on the road expenses” for the ” insiders”. This is particularly important in light of the SEC recommendation that the crystal place be closed down and all JC/AOC operations be shifted to Sacramento, which by the way is one of the many SEC recommendations completely ignored by the ruling elites at 455 Golden Gate.

Overview
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is the staff agency of the Judicial Council, the policy-making body for the state court system. The AOC serves the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the courts for the benefit of all Californians by advancing leadership and excellence in the administration of justice that continuously improves access to a fair and impartial judicial system.

The AOC’s Office of Governmental Affairs (OGA) represents and advocates for the Judicial Council on legislative, policy, and budget matters. In addition, the office reviews all legislation, identifies bills of interest to the judicial branch, and assists the council’s Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee (PCLC) in formulating positions on bills on behalf of the Judicial Council. OGA staff participates in legislative proceedings to effectively advocate legislative positions.

The Assistant Director, in the Office of Governmental Affairs (OGA) and under the direction of the Director of the OGA and the Administrative Director of the Courts, will assist in managing the work, programs, and personnel of the Office of Governmental Affairs.
.
Responsibilities
Management
• Primary management responsibility for the legislative advocacy function including ongoing supervision and leadership for the advocacy team, as well as consultation with advocates on legislative issues: identifying strategies, advising on politically sensitive issues;
• Works closely with Administrative Supervisor on policy, workload, and management issues relating to administrative staff;
• Lead responsibility for Policy, Coordination and Liaison Committee (PCLC) meetings. Advises staff on agenda development, content of analyses, strategic issues;
• Provides oversight on communications and outreach activities, including the Bench-Bar Coalition and other coalition-building activities in support of the council’s legislative and budget priorities;
• Reviews and monitors office’s annual budget, travel expenditures, and other office-related expenditures;
• Works with OGA staff on the development of tools to identify and monitor due dates of legislatively mandated reports.

Policy and Communications
• Works with the OGA Director and PCLC leadership to identify Judicial Council legislative and budget priorities to present for council sponsorship; designs strategies to implement the Judicial Council’s priorities;
• Provides substantial support to the Director and OGA staff on judicial branch budget issues;
• Primary responsibility for legislative advocacy on the following issues: judgeships, subordinate judicial officers; court reporters; collections; labor and employment; court security.

Human Resources
• Participates in all recruitments and office hiring decisions;
• Creates performance development plans for the advocacy team;
• Responsible for handling performance issues;
• Reviews and approves training requests.
.
Qualifications
Equivalent to possession of a bachelor’s degree and eight years of experience in the relevant field, including a minimum of three years of increasingly responsible management experience. Completion of graduate level college coursework in law, public administration, business administration, or other directly related field may be substituted for experience on a year-for-year basis (but not for the three years of management experience).

OR

Two years as a Manager or Senior Manager; or three years as a Supervising Analyst, Supervising Attorney, or other supervisory-level professional class with the judicial branch.

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS:

The successful candidate will have demonstrated experience in or detailed knowledge of:

• The California judicial system and court operations and procedures;
• Legislative/policy analysis and lead advocacy experience;
• The state’s legislative processes and procedures; and
• Management principles and practices in a high volume, dynamic environment, including goal setting; employee development; program development, implementation, and evaluation; the supervision of employees; problem-solving and conflict resolution methods and techniques.

The successful candidate will be highly motivated, and possess excellent interpersonal and communication skills. The individual will have sound judgment, unquestionable integrity, and above average decision-making skills. In addition, he or she will display strong leadership and team building abilities.

In addition to the above qualifications, admission to the State Bar of California is highly desirable.
.
Other Information
• If you are selected for hire, the Administrative Office of the Courts will require verification of employment eligibility or authorization to legally work in the United States.
.
How To Apply
To ensure consideration of your application for the earliest round of interviews, please apply by 5:00 p.m. on June 25, 2013; however this position will remain open until filled. This position requires the submission of our official application, a resume, and a response to supplemental questions.

To complete an online application, please click the APPLY NOW button below

OR

To obtain a printed application, please download a copy from our website under the Special Access and Paper Application section OR visit:

.
Supplemental Questions
This supplemental questionnaire must be completed and returned with your application in order for your application to be considered for review. This supplemental form is intended to provide more detailed information about your work experience and your answers will allow us to better assess your qualifications. Your response to all of the questions should not exceed two pages in total.

3. Briefly describe your work experience that involved managing a staff or providing lead direction or involved complex and highly sensitive issues.

4. Please list the skills and qualities that make you a strong candidate for this position.
.
Pay and Benefits
SALARY RANGE: $10,387 – $13,060 per month
(Starting salary may vary between $10,387 – $11,404 per month.)

NOTE: This salary does not reflect the current 4.62% reduction for one mandatory furlough day per month.

While courthouses are closing and huge numbers of trial court employees lose their jobs , is it really necessary and essential that the AOC employ an Assistant Director of the Office of Governmental Affairs at a salary of over 13,000 a month ? Of course not. The AOC’s failure to control their spending and continued arrogance in wasting valuable taxpayer money shows why they need to be gutted and defunded.

Well, let’s think about that….if you’re under constant criticism for the lousy job you’ve done and continue to do, you’re told you’re “on probation” by the hand that feeds you, you’ve got scandals and potential scandals brewing up and down the state on courthouse construction and automation systems and God knows what else, you’re standing idly by as the trial courts slash staff , cut services, and close courtrooms, all while you’re continuing to operate in the marbled halls of the Crystal Palace as if none of this had happened under your watch, then, well, yeah, you might think it was important to hire another high powered, overpaid lobbyist to spin the story in more favorable terms. Quite logical, actually.

“(CN) – Federal courts are developing plans to share administrative services across the country to cope with $350 million in budget cuts, the judiciary said Thursday. In an ‘effort to contain costs and manage resources in a difficult budget climate,’ the courts plan to ‘voluntarily share administrative services,’ according to a statement from Third Branch News, the newsletter maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.”
================================================================

After all, the federal courts seem to be working far better than our state courts in California. Thank you, billV and ronO! Thank you, The Tani, for continuing the horrific Team George to all our ruin. No one could’ve done a better job than The Tani. That’s no doubt why she was selected.

Democratize the JC! Defund and gut the AOC! Recall The Tani! Long live the ACJ!

MODESTO — It will be the most expensive public works project in Stanislaus County history and forever alter downtown Modesto, but so far, the public has been cut out of the planning process.

Every decision concerning where the proposed $277.2 million Modesto courthouse will be built has been made in secret, with state court officials insisting they are exempt from open meeting laws.

Now Modesto city officials are privately crafting a plan to buy out six landowners on one block of downtown, improve the site to make it easier to build on and then resell that property to the state for the courthouse.

The Modesto Bee – Debbie Noda/dnoda@modbee.com The buildings along 9th street between G and H including the Turner building and Gervasoni’s Restaurant. A preferred site, between Ninth and 10th streets and G and H streets in downtown Modesto has been identified for the new Stanislaus county courthouse, May 9, 2013.

• best, the city will “break even” on the deal, officials acknowledge.
It might be a great plan, but who is making these decisions?
No public meetings have been held to discuss the city’s development deal or how it will be paid for or what financial risks it creates.

The City Council never has discussed it publicly, no documents have been released explaining how such a deal might work, and only sketchy details have been released.
Last week, Brent Sinclair, Modesto’s director of community and economic development, told The Bee he expects to present a plan outlining the costs, financing and other details to the council within 60 days.

But in an email to The Bee late Thursday explaining why the state wants to buy the block between Ninth and 10th streets and H and G streets, California’s Administrative Office of the Courts suggests an agreement already has been reached.

“The city of Modesto has agreed to act as aggregator of all the parcels and representative for all the landowners. The way this works is that both escrows — the city to the (state’s court system) and the parcel owners to the city — will close at the same time,” wrote Keby Boyer, spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the Courts.

How the city agreed to something the City Council has never publicly discussed was not explained, but the state expects to close the deal by early 2014.

The city already owns two of the eight parcels on that block, plus the alley that runs through the middle of it. The plan is for the city to buy the other six parcels from their private landowners, then move out all the utility lines running through the alley. After that, the entire block would be sold to the state.

Those utilities could include water, sewer lines, electrical, gas, telephone and cable lines.
Whether the block’s office buildings, shops and restaurant would have to be closed or demolished for those lines to be moved has not been explained.

How much the city would have to spend to move those utilities, where it would get the money to do it and whether the state would refund that expense also has not been explained.

And before the state agrees to buy the land from the city, the property has to clear environmental inspections.

“At this phase of site acquisition, a more in-depth environmental study is being conducted to determine if there are any environmental contaminants on the site and to what extent,” Boyer wrote in response to The Bee’s questions. “Until that study is complete, there is no way to determine who will be physically and financially responsible for any cleanup, if applicable.”

Bus station is former tenant

The block has been used by many businesses and for assorted purposes over the past 100 years, including as a bus station. What would happen if the city discovers contamination while digging up the utility lines hasn’t been explained.

“The city of Modesto will not be left holding the land if the land purchase doesn’t go through,” Boyer said. “If for whatever reason the site purchase does not go through — which is unlikely because the new Modesto courthouse project was funded for site acquisition in fiscal year 2012-2013 — the city of Modesto is not obligated to buy the parcels and is free to cancel the transaction.”

How the city could retain the right to cancel the land purchase while it moves all the utility lines from that block has not been explained.

The block is occupied by assorted businesses, including Gervasoni’s Restaurant and numerous tenants in the Turner office building.

“By law, the state is allowed to pay up to the current appraised value for the land,” Boyer said.

The state has had the block appraised, but it has not made that information public. The 33,383-square-foot Turner building, however, recently has been marketed for sale with an asking price of $3.2 million.

The six privately owned parcels there now pay more than $32,000 per year in property taxes, but government-owned property — whether held by the city or the state — is tax-exempt.

If the deal does go through, that block could sit empty for years waiting for the courthouse to be built. That’s because the state does not yet have money budgeted to build — or even design — the structure.

“As of right now, the new Modesto county courthouse cannot proceed into the design phase because there are no funds available for this in the fiscal year 2013-2014,” Boyer wrote. She said state budget cuts have delayed construction plans for many courthouses. “If funding is not restored to the courthouse construction program, or if more funding cuts are in store, more court construction projects may be delayed for a year, indefinitely delayed, or canceled.”

The Modesto courthouse already is far behind its original construction schedule. The state has spent nearly 2½ years deciding which Modesto site it wants to buy for the project.
At least six downtown sites were considered, but Modesto city officials have steadily pushed for this block between Ninth and 10th streets, where it owns just over a half-acre on two corner parcels.

The city has been trying to get that block redeveloped for more than a dec-ade. It bought the corner of 10th and H streets in 2003, then immediately resold it to a developer who was supposed to build a high-rise multiuse project called Valley Tower. That project never got off the ground, and the city ended up getting the land back in early 2005.

Later in 2005, a different development group, calling itself Team Modesto, proposed another multistory, multiuse building there. But that plan dissolved when the real estate market collapsed in 2007. The city has been using that land as a parking lot ever since.
Advisory group formed

When the state decided in 2010 that it would fund a new Stanislaus County courthouse, the city and numerous private downtown Modesto landowners were contacted about the possibility of selling their land.

No public hearings were held about where the massive eight-story, 26-courtroom, 301,353-square-foot structure should be built. Instead, in late 2010, the state selected a 19-member Project Advisory Group to provide suggestions on site selection and design.

“The Project Advisory Group is the community’s representative when it comes to offering input on the new courthouse construction project,” Boyer explained.

But who are the community members in that advisory group?

Of the 19 members, 16 are public employees working for various government agencies, including Sinclair and another Modesto city planner. Also placed on the advisory panel were Modesto’s former longtime planning director, a representative from the Stanislaus County Bar Association and a Modesto Chamber of Commerce representative.

The chamber’s representative is Eric Benson, who is president of JS West & Cos. JS West owns the entire Ninth Street block facing where the new courthouse is supposed to be built. His family-owned company has been doing business there for a century.

“I didn’t think it was much of a conflict,” Benson said about being on the advisory group. He said he hasn’t attended an advisory meeting in more than a year.

The advisory group “helped narrow down” the list of potential courthouse sites, Benson said. “I felt they listened to us, and the worst choices got taken off the list.”

By late 2011, two sites became finalists: the one the city favored between Ninth and 10th and the block where The Bee leases space between 13th and 14th streets and H and I streets. The Bee’s parent company sold that site to a group of private investors in early 2011 and no longer has a financial interest in the property.

Boyer said the state ultimately chose the site between Ninth and 10th streets because it is within the city’s master plan for growth along 10th Street, it is closer to Modesto’s regional transportation center and it provides more options within the city’s zoning height regulations.
Benson said he agrees with the decision to build there.

“It will probably do wonders for the property values of the land adjacent to that facility,” he said. “I think there’s going to be demand for office space in and around that building.”

Benson said JS West currently operates a profitable feed mill across the street from the courthouse site and expects to continue running it. “We will be a great neighbor to the new courthouse,” he said.

Also on that JS West land, however, is an 11,749- square-foot building where the company formerly operated a furniture store. That building, at H and Ninth streets, is leased to the Wellspring Anglican Church, but the church plans to move out within the year.

“I’d love to see lawyers’ offices in there,” Benson said. “But I’m not going to make definitive plans until there’s a shovel in the ground (at the courthouse site).”

Revitalizing 10th Street

Sinclair said the courthouse is a key component in Modesto’s effort to revitalize 10th Street and draw more people to that part of downtown. He said the city believes increasing and concentrating the number of people downtown will result in more restaurants, stores and other businesses.

Tenth Street already has the DoubleTree Hotel, Tenth Street Plaza and the Gallo Center for the Arts. Sinclair said the courthouse and the proposal to build a downtown train station on Ninth Street near the courthouse could draw even more people.

Eventually, Sinclair said, the city envisions that vitality would attract developers, who would build housing downtown for a mix of people, from young professionals and empty-nesters to sen-iors who want to enjoy the revitalized urban amenities.

The City Council has not scheduled when it will publicly discuss the city’s role in the courthouse deal.

Boyer said that when the project advances to the design phase, perhaps in 2014 or 2015, the state and the Project Advisory Group “will host an open house for the public to attend.”

LAW FOUNDATION OF SILICON VALLEY HOSTS 39th ANNUAL CELEBRATION OF JUSTICE. The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley marked its 39th Annual Celebration of Justice May 9 at the Burlingame Marriott Hotel with a dinner, live and silent auctions, an awards program and a keynote speech by DLA Piper senior public policy advisor and former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Proceeds from the event benefit the Law Foundation’s five legal services programs, which provide support to low-income Silicon Valley residents in need, and include Health Legal Services, Fair Housing Law Project, Legal Advocates for Children & Youth, Mental Health Advocacy Project and Public Interest Law Firm. Law Foundation Executive Director James K. Bower said, “The Celebration of Justice is an important event and each year it helps us achieve our mission of advancing the rights of under-represented individuals and families through legal services, strategic advocacy and educational outreach.”

Superior courts statewide continue to face significant financial challenges as a result of the current fiscal crisis, which the Legislature has recognized as one of the most serious and dire ever to affect the state. In an effort to meet these challenges, while remaining open on all days that are not judicial holidays, and preserving as fully as possible access to court services for all litigants, many courts have announced plans to offer reduced services.
Under Government Code section 68106, courts must provide written notice to the public and to the Judicial Council at least 60 days before putting into effect a plan to reduce costs by closing courtrooms or clerks’ offices or reducing clerks’ office hours. The council must post all such notices on its Internet site within 15 days of receiving them.

On May 13, San Mateo Superior Court Executive Officer John C. Fitton gave notice to the Judicial Council of a reduction in services, stating, in part, “The Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo is providing notice of a reduction in services at our Northern Branch located at 1050 Mission Road in South San Francisco and Central Branch located at 800 N. Humboldt St. in San Mateo, effective July 15, 2013.

We will close four of our six courtrooms in our South San Francisco branch and only criminal preliminary hearing calendars for northern jurisdiction cases will be held at this location. All other northern criminal calendars will be consolidated and heard in Redwood City.

We will also be suspending all calendars and operations in our San Mateo branch with that location only being utilized for trials as assigned by our Presiding Judge.

All traffic and small claims trials will be heard only in the Southern Branch in Redwood City.
The Northern Criminal Clerk’s Office will close and consolidate with our Criminal Clerk’s Office in Redwood City. … We will no longer offer the ability to obtain domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders at the Northern branch location, so parties will be redirected to Redwood City for assistance. … This change is a result of the unprecedented and ongoing state budget cuts to the trial courts of more than $1 billion over the past five years. … As a result of these state cuts, the San Mateo Superior Court has been forced to reduce its workforce by over 30 percent to date. … Further, changes in trial court funding methodology will result in added reductions to the San Mateo Superior Court over the next five years if the state does not fully fund the trial courts. … The court greatly regrets the necessity of reducing these services. … Steps the court has already taken over the last five years to operationalize the ongoing cuts have been considerable, including but not limited to maximizing technology and business process re-engineering efficiencies, cutting all non-personnel costs, renegotiating service contracts, consolidating trial court services and clerks offices, reducing employee wages due to mandated court closures, increasing benefit contributions and significantly reducing our workforce through normal attrition, incentive programs and layoffs. We have also reduced court calendars and clerk’s office public counter and phone hours in addition to spending a sizable portion of our reserves. With significantly fewer employees to handle the work of the court, we must continually take steps to balance our essential court workload as we strive to become even more efficient and operate within our means.”

Meanwhile, as has been pointed out by so many, those “in charge” of the “policy-making” body in San Francisco have never met a dollar bill they didn’t want to spend.

If someone follows the breadcrumbs dropped by The OBT above, some interesting facts will develop. HRH-2, Jahr, Sonderland and Patel have out-done the Lone Stranger and Tonto. Sifting through the various AOC accounts, someone is going to find that in 2012, almost $1 Million was spent on “lodging” for the aforementioned hacks. Whether it’s an Opera House condo or Hyatt-type facilities, unbelievable amounts of public money are being wasted so that these “administrators” have a comfortable home away from home. Even the Lone Stranger (Vickrey) and Tonto (Overholt) knew not to be that obvious, at least while in the United States (e.g. trips to New Zealand).

Follow the money baby….

Another reason why the Legislature should have the Judicial Branch “lodged” in Sacramento, not split between SF, LA, etc., etc., etc…

“Follow the money…” N.W., that’s indeed the key to it. I used to work for a former U.S. Attorney, who was famous for his “famous old sayings”. He said if you couldn’t solve a mystery using standard analytical methods, and no matter how you looked at a situation, if the explanation still wasn’t obvious, then FOLLOW THE MONEY…it will lead you to the answer.

Why are the “dissenters” legitimate inquiries ignored?

Why hasn’t the SEC report been fully implemented?

Why hasn’t membership on the JC been democratized?

Why is every news release from the AOC filled with abject distortions, if not outright lies?

Why do the same people who created the stinking mess not only get to keep their jobs, but get promoted?

Why do outrageous deals with private contractors get approved and despite the obvious incompetence (or worse) of those contractors, nothing ever bad happens to them?

Why do failed automation systems continue to receive development funding, even after the Legislature has said stop?

Why are public/private courthouse partnerships never investigated to see whether insiders are improperly benefiting?

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

California State Legislature, are you paying attention? Isn’t it time to convene a joint investigatory committee? How much worse is it going to get before you something? Shouldn’t you be the one to uncover what’s going on and not wait for a U.S. Attorney to do it?

Returning to the comment by Jody Patel she is quoted saying, ….”And that means the courts will be able to re-hire some of the 2200 trial court employee that have been lost over the last several years.”

As one of those laid off employees I don’t buy it. For other state employees laid off in the great recession there are lists (SROA lists) that give them preference on jobs with state agencies because they lost their jobs due to the budget not for poor performance.

The CA Courts are not that professional. I don’t believe they have such rehire lists nor do they want to. They fire their political enemies during budget cuts. Every up or down in the budget cycle is just another opportunity to consolidate power with their loyalist people. They fire political enemies and then rehire someone they feel is going to be a “team” player.

There are no standards for court administration. It is a world of political allies and enemies. This is why AOC allies are in top jobs around the state. That is why the Chief apponts all members to the Judicial Council. she goes around the state talking to students anout working hard and getting good grades but it is not hard work or knowledge that matters. It is playing along to get along. Showing loyalty even when it is a bad idea (like CCMS or all these new courthouses)
Cross them politically and your career in the courts is over. It does not matter about your education, your experience, or your skills. Without standards for the profession or unions most court admin staff have careers at the whim of management and judges. The world of CA Court Admin is not one where diverse ideas and perspectives are debated. They are fine with diversity of people in terms of race or gender but it is a 100% top down show when it comes to ideas. The notion of a democratic JC which challenged ideas from the top was “war” to Ron George and Tani has walked the same line. I agree with Woodhull that dictatorship is the appropriate term that applies for policy issues in CA Courts. Ironic, that the institution focused on delivering justice to the public is so corrupt and unjust in it’s internal hiring practices. Don’t believe me, them showe the rehire lists…..

Because, if the investigators start digging around, they would find out that one example of corruption would lead to another and another and another. It wouldn’t take long before the top echelon was implicated in some pretty ugly stuff. Better to just sweep it under the rug and hope nobody lifts the rug. I suspect it’s getting pretty crowded under that rug.

Can you spell “white collar crime”? Do you recognize the acronym “RICO”?

Wouldn’t you love to see…(the perps*)… put in prison?
_______________________________________________

*”All persons are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Names have been omitted to protect the innocent”. But you can fill in the blanks, if you wish. I can’t stop you from doing that.

R.Campomadera nailed it! These high-powered string-pullers are all part of the same self-serving and corrupt Cockroach Club. That’s the way of the world anymore. All of those who are in “the club” grow ever more emboldened to continue schemes that benefit themselves by way of money, power and status, because they can do so with immunity and impunity, and everyone else be damned.

F-B-I in this case might as well stand for Forgetta-Bout-It. Ain’t no investigator gonna be able to do a thing to collar the untouchables. This is the new status quo. Why? Who’s willing/able to FOLLOW THE MONEY if they’ll either be, 1) exposed, themselves, or 2) find themselves out of a job cuz they’re either a “whistle-blower” or a good investigator?

Follow the Money! Nah, not the Guv, nor the Legislature, nor the AG, nor the FBI, nor any other alphabet-soup agency would dare touch anyone in the “club,” cuz they’re either part of it, or at risk of losing their job cuz they’re <i?not.

Hmm the IRS is sounding more and more like the AOC every day. Treating ” dissenters” differently. Thanks J Hull that is exactly what you do with ” dissenting ” public information requests. Wasting money on the “insiders” . Just yesterday we learned of lavish IRS functions. We have known of similar JC/AOC abuses dating back to the Gray Goose lunches and dinners, and Tonto’s SF hotel expenditures. Is Tonto’s hotel abuse unique or does this go deeper ? Perhaps the legislature or press should be asking about this. Would J Hull be assigned to address those inquiries as well? Sounds like a tangled web indeed,with the California taxpayer paying the price.

OBT, Gray Goose lunches and dinners and stays at lavish hotels are bad. But I suspect the level of corruption goes well beyond such “penny ante” stuff. For example, did any judicial officer or employee receive personal benefit from the CCMS debacle (e.g. under-the-table payments, free trips and other emoluments, excessively paid “jobs” after jumping ship from their judicial jobs)? Have any officers or employees personally benefited from the Long Beach courthouse project (e.g. sales of real estate, contractor connections)? Just to name two obvious areas of stink.

Hopefully, the answer to these questions is an unequivocal NO! But where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire and I think someone’s been playing with matches.

Why has Delloitte Consulting been given a complete pass on its outrageously incompetent work? Who benefits from this situation? Contrast the JC/AOC’s reaction to Deloitte with the the actions of the State Controller.

Why are obviously incompetent and/or corrupt employees of the AOC not fired, but rather are promoted (maybe someone is afraid of what they might disclose if they were let go, so better to keep them “in the fold”)?

Why are legitimate inquiries into the inner workings of the third branch of OUR government ignored by high level officers…what are they trying to hide? Who are they protecting?

Living the high life at fancy hotels while drinking expensive vodka is bad, but is that just the tip of the proverbial iceberg? Don’t the people of California deserve to know if their judiciary is corrupt? I hope it’s not, but I think it’s time to find out and only an independent investigation commissioned by the State Legislature can make that determination.

It also sounds like time to organize a recall campaign that would include HRH-2 and Hull. The IRS scandal hits home to all and the public just needs to learn how similar the arrogant Judicial Council and AOC are. Once they do change will finally come to the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate.

Responding to the Governor’s May Revise proposal which threatened the closure of court houses in the cities of Blythe and Calexico, Pérez sent a letter to the Budget Subcommittee 5 urging support for the amplification of trial court funding to keep these critical community assets functioning, according to a press release from Pérez’s Office.